Josh Duggar arrested and in federal custody

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe his lawyer didn’t advise him to try and seek a plea deal. The Feds have a very high conviction rate in general and I’m sure they will be crossing all their ts and dotting their is in something this high profile.

I guess a lifetime of doing this and getting away with it has made him falsely confident he’ll get another slap on the wrist.

And if he's convicted at trial, he and his family can claim they're being persecuted. They can't do that if he enters a plea deal and is forced to admit his guilt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe his lawyer didn’t advise him to try and seek a plea deal. The Feds have a very high conviction rate in general and I’m sure they will be crossing all their ts and dotting their is in something this high profile.

I guess a lifetime of doing this and getting away with it has made him falsely confident he’ll get another slap on the wrist.

From what I understand, a plea deal was offered and he declined it.

[Anonymous]

What does CSAM stand for?

[Anonymous]

Child sex abuse material?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

A couple things I thought about since the Duggars are fond of buying used, if the computer was purchased used, the partition may have already existed and he just never knew. If you are just a typical consumer purchasing a used computer you might not consider looking for a partition or a even a second drive being installed. I also wonder when you are into downloading that kind of material if the setup isn't to access a remote server, perform some actions there to have the files pushed down to your computer remotely thereby making it appear that you did not initiate that remote session and just happened to have the bad luck of some bad person who chose your computer to park those images / files on...

They've established that the partition was created the day before the downloads started to occur. The defense is trying to suggest that someone basically used Josh's computer as a server, and that they could have remotely used his computer to do the download, and then remotely stream the content. The defense claims that without the router logs, they don't know if another device was accessing the router during this time, so they can't rule out a remote user theory, but they're ignoring that the computer would log remote activity as well

According to the Sun coverage, the files that would show remote activity have been overwritten:

28 minutes ago

Remmina

Clayman asked Bush if there was evidence the Linux side had remote access and Bush said those logs have been overwritten.

Clayman said in Bush's report, she does not mention remote access apps on Linux, but she mentioned an app for such access, Remmina, in her testimony.

He asked if there was proof Remmina was used and she said the logs were overwritten.

Bush said she had no proof of remote access but can't rule it out.

32 minutes ago

No idea of remote access

Clayman then asked if Bush found no evidence showing that the access was remote, and Bush said the evidence was not available and that logs from a router would show that.

Clayman asked if she had no idea if it was accessed remotely and she said that was correct because the evidence does not exist.

He asked if she looked for evidence to see if someone accessed the HP Windows side, and Bush said she doesn't think she did, noting it was not the infected side.

Clayman asked if there was no proof the Windows side of the HP was accessed remotely and Bush said yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A couple things I thought about since the Duggars are fond of buying used, if the computer was purchased used, the partition may have already existed and he just never knew. If you are just a typical consumer purchasing a used computer you might not consider looking for a partition or a even a second drive being installed. I also wonder when you are into downloading that kind of material if the setup isn't to access a remote server, perform some actions there to have the files pushed down to your computer remotely thereby making it appear that you did not initiate that remote session and just happened to have the bad luck of some bad person who chose your computer to park those images / files on...

They've established that the partition was created the day before the downloads started to occur. The defense is trying to suggest that someone basically used Josh's computer as a server, and that they could have remotely used his computer to do the download, and then remotely stream the content. The defense claims that without the router logs, they don't know if another device was accessing the router during this time, so they can't rule out a remote user theory, but they're ignoring that the computer would log remote activity as well

According to the Sun coverage, the files that would show remote activity have been overwritten:

28 minutes ago

Remmina

Clayman asked Bush if there was evidence the Linux side had remote access and Bush said those logs have been overwritten.

Clayman said in Bush's report, she does not mention remote access apps on Linux, but she mentioned an app for such access, Remmina, in her testimony.

He asked if there was proof Remmina was used and she said the logs were overwritten.

Bush said she had no proof of remote access but can't rule it out.

32 minutes ago

No idea of remote access

Clayman then asked if Bush found no evidence showing that the access was remote, and Bush said the evidence was not available and that logs from a router would show that.

Clayman asked if she had no idea if it was accessed remotely and she said that was correct because the evidence does not exist.

He asked if she looked for evidence to see if someone accessed the HP Windows side, and Bush said she doesn't think she did, noting it was not the infected side.

Clayman asked if there was no proof the Windows side of the HP was accessed remotely and Bush said yes.

Also interesting from the Sun coverage:

46 minutes ago

Covenant Eyes

The discussion then turned to Covenant Eyes.

Between April 15, 2019, and May 9, 2019, the account was flagged for trying to download uTorrent on the Macbook.

Clayman asked if someone on the Macbook repeatedly tried to download it and Bush said correct.

--I believe she testified yesterday that it was downloaded onto the iPhone...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A couple things I thought about since the Duggars are fond of buying used, if the computer was purchased used, the partition may have already existed and he just never knew. If you are just a typical consumer purchasing a used computer you might not consider looking for a partition or a even a second drive being installed. I also wonder when you are into downloading that kind of material if the setup isn't to access a remote server, perform some actions there to have the files pushed down to your computer remotely thereby making it appear that you did not initiate that remote session and just happened to have the bad luck of some bad person who chose your computer to park those images / files on...

They've established that the partition was created the day before the downloads started to occur. The defense is trying to suggest that someone basically used Josh's computer as a server, and that they could have remotely used his computer to do the download, and then remotely stream the content. The defense claims that without the router logs, they don't know if another device was accessing the router during this time, so they can't rule out a remote user theory, but they're ignoring that the computer would log remote activity as well

According to the Sun coverage, the files that would show remote activity have been overwritten:

28 minutes ago

Remmina

Clayman asked Bush if there was evidence the Linux side had remote access and Bush said those logs have been overwritten.

Clayman said in Bush's report, she does not mention remote access apps on Linux, but she mentioned an app for such access, Remmina, in her testimony.

He asked if there was proof Remmina was used and she said the logs were overwritten.

Bush said she had no proof of remote access but can't rule it out.

32 minutes ago

No idea of remote access

Clayman then asked if Bush found no evidence showing that the access was remote, and Bush said the evidence was not available and that logs from a router would show that.

Clayman asked if she had no idea if it was accessed remotely and she said that was correct because the evidence does not exist.

He asked if she looked for evidence to see if someone accessed the HP Windows side, and Bush said she doesn't think she did, noting it was not the infected side.

Clayman asked if there was no proof the Windows side of the HP was accessed remotely and Bush said yes.

That bolded right there is why most professional digital forensics organizations won't allow you to be a member if you provide expert testimony to the defense.

Working for the prosecution is working for the truth. Working for the defense is working for their truth.

To verbally say under oath the name of a remote access program that was not noted in your official report is such a knock to your credibility as a forensic examiner.

I wonder how many other forensic professionals they went to for expert testimony services before they landed on her. I mean, she's not even been doing digital forensics for 10 years. She has no official Linux-based courses or certifications on her CV.

[Anonymous]

I wonder how many other forensic professionals they went to for expert testimony services before they landed on her. I mean, she's not even been doing digital forensics for 10 years. She has no official Linux-based courses or certifications on her CV.

Jim Bob is cheap too. I wouldn't be surprised if they went with the lowest quote, regardless of credentials.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A couple things I thought about since the Duggars are fond of buying used, if the computer was purchased used, the partition may have already existed and he just never knew. If you are just a typical consumer purchasing a used computer you might not consider looking for a partition or a even a second drive being installed. I also wonder when you are into downloading that kind of material if the setup isn't to access a remote server, perform some actions there to have the files pushed down to your computer remotely thereby making it appear that you did not initiate that remote session and just happened to have the bad luck of some bad person who chose your computer to park those images / files on...

They've established that the partition was created the day before the downloads started to occur. The defense is trying to suggest that someone basically used Josh's computer as a server, and that they could have remotely used his computer to do the download, and then remotely stream the content. The defense claims that without the router logs, they don't know if another device was accessing the router during this time, so they can't rule out a remote user theory, but they're ignoring that the computer would log remote activity as well

According to the Sun coverage, the files that would show remote activity have been overwritten:

28 minutes ago

Remmina

Clayman asked Bush if there was evidence the Linux side had remote access and Bush said those logs have been overwritten.

Clayman said in Bush's report, she does not mention remote access apps on Linux, but she mentioned an app for such access, Remmina, in her testimony.

He asked if there was proof Remmina was used and she said the logs were overwritten.

Bush said she had no proof of remote access but can't rule it out.

32 minutes ago

No idea of remote access

Clayman then asked if Bush found no evidence showing that the access was remote, and Bush said the evidence was not available and that logs from a router would show that.

Clayman asked if she had no idea if it was accessed remotely and she said that was correct because the evidence does not exist.

He asked if she looked for evidence to see if someone accessed the HP Windows side, and Bush said she doesn't think she did, noting it was not the infected side.

Clayman asked if there was no proof the Windows side of the HP was accessed remotely and Bush said yes.

That bolded right there is why most professional digital forensics organizations won't allow you to be a member if you provide expert testimony to the defense.

Working for the prosecution is working for the truth. Working for the defense is working for their truth.

To verbally say under oath the name of a remote access program that was not noted in your official report is such a knock to your credibility as a forensic examiner.

I wonder how many other forensic professionals they went to for expert testimony services before they landed on her. I mean, she's not even been doing digital forensics for 10 years. She has no official Linux-based courses or certifications on her CV.

Eh, of course, this isn't always the case (just speaking generally and not with regard to this case.

[Anonymous]

Defense has rested its case, prosecution has recalled their forensic computer expert to rebut and clarify the defense "expert"'s attempt at muddling things., which was very poorly done but I guess could confuse someone on the jury who can't figure out which side of an iPhone is the front.

Apparently the culprit, according to the defense, could be "someone in Paris" who remotely hacked and partitioned the PC. And somehow caused the password to the partition to be the same as Josh Duggar's bank account. Darn those French hackers.

[Anonymous]

So I guess Josh is not taking the stand...

[Anonymous]

Honestly surprised Jimbo went to the trail today.

[Anonymous]

Is it likely there will be a conviction?

[Anonymous]

The defense actually tried to blame a “hacktivist from the liberal left” for remotely accessing his Linux partition to plant evidence.

GMAFB.

[Anonymous]

When Josh is convicted, it is all going to be because of the liberal left and the fact that no one seized the damn router during the execution of the search warrant in the eyes of the Duggars.